I honestly don't know what the current status is on quantum computing, but I do know this. If I am lucky, within my life time I might see 32-bit systems become like 16-bit ones are today among computer users. With how far away that will probably be, assuming I even have kids - maybe my great great grand kids will see quantum computers make the same headway that 64-bit systems are making now.

64-bit capable systems are everywhere, but at home how many copies of Windows XP/VISA do you see running x86-64 on store shelves? One of my friends threw out the 64-bit version of WinXP and Ubuntu some time ago, they just couldn't bare his gaming rig. I can just imagine what horror the change over to quantum computers will bring users, even NetBSD might take sometime to reach that level of portability, let along most peoples everyday software lol.

A years ago or so, I was reading articles about quantum computer devices that are in used for crypography and some companies that actually have some products that solve puzzles in the ACM journal. Given that they already have some that actually do something I think they will exist in the Super Computer arena. I would guess that it is a safe bet that the military of some super secret organization has a proto-type running now.

__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick

64-bit processors have existed since the 60's, only the introduction into the modern PC market was recent..

There is a lot of backwards compatibility though, for instance.. many 64-bit architectures are LP64, this means char, short, int in the C language are the same size as the x86 counterpart.. only long and pointers are 64-bits wide.

Quantum computing, as I understand it.. is a fundamental redesign of computing... heck, it won't even be 1's and 0's anymore.. it'll be more like "maybe 1" or "maybe 0" or both.

Infact the move to 64 bit is quite painless.
If you are running a 64 bit OS on intel/amd then you have the flexibility of running 32-bit software (at full speed with no performance penalty) or 64-bit software where needed.
Software that doesn't require 64b capability can be expected to perform slightly worse if compiled as a 64b app and this holds true for other architectures too.
The key point here is that 32b software can happily co-exist with 64b software on a 64-bit OS.

Now, QC with its qbits and other jargon is beyond my grasp but I have a feeling that code for QC software will look nothing like what we have today and thats the scary bit.

I would not like anything that represents a dumb terminal tied to a central M$ server, and they forcing you to pay monthly fees to "rent" their apps and access the data you produce with those apps and store in their cencorship-ridden servers to replace my beloved PC's and the OS's and apps I run on them and data I store on them.

P.D: I admit it, I'm quite frigtened of the mere though of that type of future ever happening.

I would not like anything that represents a dumb terminal tied to a central M$ server, and they forcing you to pay monthly fees to "rent" their apps and access the data you produce with those apps and store in their cencorship-ridden servers to replace my beloved PC's and the OS's and apps I run on them and data I store on them.

P.D: I admit it, I'm quite frigtened of the mere though of that type of future ever happening.

Come on now! Everyone wants that! Don't you read the internet....

__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick

I saw or read something recently that said the human brain really is nothing like a computer and people should stop talking like that and I'm here to stop you right now. A lot of things I've read about those working do indicate to me that it is most certainly just a big bag of chemicals that help with interactions between nerves, synapses and all those terms I don't recall, but not in any way resembling a computer.

I was looking for an article about that earlier today. I read it in ACM along with the quantum article...

__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick

Well, lacking the necessary knowledge to describe it in the same terms as a neurological specialist, and being the next closest domain specialist when it comes to my brain... I often speak of how my brain works, as if it was a OS kernel, for lack of a better choice of words :-P.

I think quantum computing on the desktop will probably happen long before 'organic' computers make their way to every bodies desktops. I would however like to see more average computer users to actually use some more gray matter for a change!!!

There are so many factors involved with bringing Quantum Computing to the desktop that it's likely not going to happen in our lifetime in any meaningful mass commercial way.

Not only are there issues of hardware design, but even if those were figured out, the scale of manufacturing required to bring down the pricepoint to where you would find these devices on your desk is so large that I think that's an insurmountable problem in the forseeable future.

Then you have the software developers. Sure, you will have a few that can actually program in this new environment in a slightly meaningful way, but to port the existing worldwide libraries of software into QC seems a bit far-fetched, much less retrain mass numbers of developers to stop programming with 'traditional' techniques and move to QC programming.

And given the edge that QC gives governments over people and corporations and other governments in areas like encryption and weapons testing simulations, its likely (to me) that they will want to not spread the wealth of QC to the masses for as long as they can help it.

Do I fear it? Nope. Do I expect to ever sit down with a MacBook QC Pro in my lifetime? Nope.

I would guess that it is a safe bet that the military of some super secret organization has a proto-type running now.

I wouldn't put it past them. As mentioned, 64bit has been around since the 60s (as far as we know ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ai-danno

There are so many factors involved with bringing Quantum Computing to the desktop that it's likely not going to happen in our lifetime in any meaningful mass commercial way.

Not only are there issues of hardware design, but even if those were figured out, the scale of manufacturing required to bring down the pricepoint to where you would find these devices on your desk is so large that I think that's an insurmountable problem in the forseeable future.

Then you have the software developers. Sure, you will have a few that can actually program in this new environment in a slightly meaningful way, but to port the existing worldwide libraries of software into QC seems a bit far-fetched, much less retrain mass numbers of developers to stop programming with 'traditional' techniques and move to QC programming.

And given the edge that QC gives governments over people and corporations and other governments in areas like encryption and weapons testing simulations, its likely (to me) that they will want to not spread the wealth of QC to the masses for as long as they can help it.

Do I fear it? Nope. Do I expect to ever sit down with a MacBook QC Pro in my lifetime? Nope.

Too big? I guess. We're doing wonders with what we have and I guess people would resist a size increase for more features (although behaviour regarding mobile phones seems to suggest the opposite).

Will we ever get it as a desktop? If you're working for the government, in cryptography, in a company with a technology budget large enough to buy a few small islands in the pacific, maybe. At a university ... maybe, depending on what you do. For home use? As much as I hope, which I suspect is responsibel for my "maybe," I doubt it.